AWP Labs · How eight bids and an itemized list were made comparable

Owner fictional · demo tenderPackages A (3 bids) · B (5 bids)8 P6 schedules · fictional data
The challenge was translation, not analysis. Eight schedules, five contractors and an itemized list with its own codes: before anything could be compared, everything had to speak the same language.

↻ The whole process

Two inputs, one common language, two clean-ups in parallel, three checks and the dashboards.

8 bidder P6 schedules2 packages · 5 contractors · own codesOwner's itemized contract2,757 lines Package A · 4,713 lines Package BStandard classification · 16 disciplinesthe common language of both sides1Resource equalizationlabor · equipment · materials → discipline2Itemized clean-upwithdrawn (struck-through) lines out3Adherence checksscope · resources · network quality4Comparative dashboards for the review5

? What had to be translated

Each problem, its fix, and the stage where it was solved.

PROBLEM (translation, not analysis)FIX APPLIEDEach contractor with its own codes and namesstage 1-2Every resource mapped to the 16 disciplinesBidder-3 loads labor through generic rolesstage 1Role ↔ resource matrix; its schedule is left untouchedItemized list in the Owner's own codesstage 1The same 16-discipline catalogueDifferent units (kg vs t · m of cable vs m of pipe)stage 2One unit per category; kg ÷ 1,000 = tWithdrawn items, struck through in the sheetstage 3Out of every total, kept in the detail

1 One standard classification · 16 disciplines

The same catalogue for each bidder's labor, equipment and materials and for the itemized lines.

01Site establishment
02Earthworks
03Civil works
04Structural steel
05Mechanical
06Boilermaking & plating
07Piping
08Electrical
09Instrumentation & control
10Architecture
11Insulation & painting
12Hydraulics & wells
13Underground works
14Support services & rigging
15Precommissioning & start-up
16Subcontracts & transport

2 Equalize every bidder's resources

Only what has a validated physical unit enters the comparison.

1,935material resourcesacross the 8 databasesTolerant matchingof version suffixesnever by name(by name over-counted)Clear, validatedphysical unit?yes912 validated itemsm³ · t · m · unitsnever added across categoriesnoLeft out of the comparison→ 16 disciplinesEquipment (only Bidder-5 loaded it)62 machines · 1,608,150 eq-hours → eq-h/HH ratio by discipline

3 Clean the Owner's itemized list

A struck-through line is withdrawn scope: measuring against it inflates the demand.

Itemized lineof the OwnerStruck-throughformatting?yesWithdrawn itemout of every total and quantityKeptflagged in the detailnoNet baselineevery bid is measured againstPackage A2,388 valid · 369 struck through (13.4%)Package B3,518 valid · 1,195 struck through (25.4%)

4 Check adherence on three axes

Each axis answers a different question and is reported separately.

Standardized bidschedule + resources + quantitiesScope coverageDid it load what the Owner asks?itemized vs P6 · Δ and %Resource completenessIs the loading consistent?tasks without resources · gapsNetwork qualityIs the schedule sound and trackable?14 weighted DCMA checksLeveling conclusionthree separate axes, not one scoreA bid can pass one axisand fail anotherBidder-5, no materials in P6:“not loaded”, not a 0 % average

5 Show it in comparative dashboards

The standardized data feeds six comparative dashboards.

Standardized, validateddata (stages 1-4)RoadmapGantt, milestones · on your .dbP6 Check14 DCMA checks · demo built inPMO comparisonquality, Monte Carlo · on your .dbProgress Toolcurves, manpower · on your .dbItemized vs P6coverage by disciplineExecutive reportdiagnosis and recommendation
Standardizing
is the deliverable, not a preliminary: without the catalogue no comparison holds.
Unit discipline
never add across categories; convert only what is unambiguous (kg → t).
Clean both sides
a coverage figure is only as honest as the baseline it is measured against.
Multi-axis adherence
scope, resources and network quality, never collapsed into one score.
DSH-SAS-13 · Bid standardisation process - one page of flowcharts (static demo)comparative · 8 objects AWP Labs object catalog · generated 2026-09-26

AWP Labs · contact@awplabs.cl · Illustrative case: bidder, owner, site and program names are fictional; dates, hours and quantities have been altered.

← Insights